Artimas wrote:I hope you enjoy the image I have attached, different levels of frequency of which manifest based off of unique value attribution and individual choice.

Frequencies of mind. I appreciate it for what it is and myself for what I am, a purple mind, ineffable.

“It is what it is and it is what you make it.”

That chart, which I cannot seem to copy or bring with me, seems like a mix of different kinds of states and qualities. One coudl have several at once and I do not think the ones at the top are better. So much depends on the context.

Jakob wrote:This schematic you posted Artimas is pretty nifty.Its an interesting experiment to go in meditation from the bottom to the top.

Id say most od us operate at least on two of these frequencies - I don't know how literal to take that term here - at any given time.

There can very well be joy with a background of fear, or reason with a background of shame - and this is I think pretty useful as a therapeutic model.

Agree, most likely bounce between multiple frequencies. Once you get to the view of it is what it is though, there is no turning back so at the highest state, one can effectively see when one is in a negative state easier and is more likely to catch such than someone whom is only on one of those states. Because to rise, all states must be experienced at least once or twice in life to understand them. That’s the moving up the staircase aspect, if we couldn’t or didn’t bounce back or go down as well, there would be no worry of devolution and I wouldn’t be here, but we can move backwards.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

He is a wannabe slave-master. He doesn't believe the shit he's posting. He doesn't trust in his own words and position. Instead he pushes his agenda as a means to persuade others into slavery, or those who are slaves, to prevent them from ever considering Freedom. He hates the idea of Freedom. He is against it, with all his ("intellectual") might, because it would cut into his underlying agenda.

He hates the possibility that other people could be 'freer' than he-himself is.

And/Or

He hates the possibility that slaves might become enticed by dialogue of Freedom, and then go onto Free-themselves. As a wannabe slave-master, this is too much for him to tolerate.

He'd just call that ad hom.

The problem with this academic gymnastics is that common sense win every time.

He's basically calling it a logical fallacy that if silhouette and I were in a mesa (cliff on the whole perimeter) and I warned silhouette that there are cliffs in all sides, and then silhouette walks to the edge and walks around the whole perimeter without falling, and then states, "there are no cliffs here", that I am committing a logical fallacy by inferring that silhouette most certainly believes that a cliff is there. Then silhouette would quote the argument from incredubulity! When it's not me, but silhouette who is being the incredulous one.

Silhouette is like some bizarre broken computer of logical fallacies.

I don't think he's trying to make slaves, I just think he's a broken computer.

Jakob wrote:This schematic you posted Artimas is pretty nifty.Its an interesting experiment to go in meditation from the bottom to the top.

Id say most od us operate at least on two of these frequencies - I don't know how literal to take that term here - at any given time.

There can very well be joy with a background of fear, or reason with a background of shame - and this is I think pretty useful as a therapeutic model.

Agree, most likely bounce between multiple frequencies. Once you get to the view of it is what it is though, there is no turning back so at the highest state, one can effectively see when one is in a negative state easier and is more likely to catch such than someone whom is only on one of those states. Because to rise, all states must be experienced at least once or twice in life to understand them. That’s the moving up the staircase aspect, if we couldn’t or didn’t bounce back or go down as well, there would be no worry of devolution and I wouldn’t be here, but we can move backwards.

When I was about 20 years younger I achieved Nirvana for the first time, and I spent the next six month meditating continuously, every day struggling to get to that state, and once arrived, spending a few hours there.

Eventually, because the state wasn't permanent, I lost a bit of faith in it as a purpose and I allowed myself to drift back into a more imperfect consciousness, knowing the bliss is part of me and always attainable.

Now, I enjoy he struggles of life and the sort of jagged consciousness that comes with it, which I see epitomized in dramatic art, especially of the typical western kinds, such as tragedy and hiphop.

The problem with this academic gymnastics is that common sense win every time.

He's basically calling it a logical fallacy that if silhouette and I were in a mesa (cliff on the whole perimeter) and I warned silhouette that there are cliffs in all sides, and then silhouette walks to the edge and walks around the whole perimeter without falling, and then states, "there are no cliffs here", that I am committing a logical fallacy by inferring that silhouette most certainly believes that a cliff is there. Then silhouette would quote the argument from incredubulity! When it's not me, but silhouette who is being the incredulous one.

Silhouette is like some bizarre broken computer of logical fallacies.

I don't think he's trying to make slaves, I just think he's a broken computer.

It's not really worth conversing with that one - except if you agree with him and you want reassurance and a sense of belonging to a tribe. Give it a go though if you want to try it out for yourself. Funnily enough, if I'm a broken computer, he's a broken record - the chip I've put on his shoulder from demolishing him constantly for about a year really took a toll on him, he still can't shut up about me

I would take exception to common sense winning every time. That's no slight to common sense - there is a ruthless society-wide refinement that goes into forming it, but this is also its weakness. Its whole point is to homogenise into a simple, singular, mediocre "common" sense for common people. It's adverse to new creative thinking, which you might call rare sense. I'm well aware that I'm furthering a worldview of rare sense that flies in the face of common sense in many ways, but the fact that it solves so many traditionally problematic philosophical conundrums in a relatively simple way makes it really promising in my opinion - and absolutely worth exploring.

It's an original philosophy that I came up with many years ago, which I dubbed "Experientialism".

And I wouldn't say I am incredulous, because I am able to believe in identity - as I prove through my use of it in communication and casual social interaction (I would be seen as extremely weird to common people if I didn't conform to such basic linguistic traditions in everyday conversation!) I have just adopted far more rigorous standards of knowledge than usual, which identity does not pass, and so using these standards it can no longer be said to be "true". However I think I can say differently about you and others, who won't/can't believe the consequences of adopting standards of knowledge as rigorous as I am using. To borrow your analogy, I'm not walking around the cliffs, I am walking on what you thought was over the edge, but actually isn't.

Ecmandu wrote:Let's condense your argument as you've presented it.

Utility is not the absolute truth.

The absolute truth is no identity.

Sure, that seems fine.

Ecmandu wrote:Your reliance upon utility is a contradiction to how a person is required to act if they truly believed what you assert to believe is the only truth.

So, I can easily assert that you don't believe your own argument whether it's true or not.

I can see now that you've been using the word "contradiction" in the layman way - where it is acceptable to say things like "your words contradict your actions". I've been using the technical way this whole time - the one that is applicable to logic. Sure, in layman's terms my words "contradict" my actions. But there is no logical contradiction there if using the term as it is used in logic.

Ecmandu wrote:That's just a bare minimum of what I'm required to do to end this debate, that as a proof, you don't believe your own argument.

Even though I did prove it false, I don't even have to go that far with you.

You're responding to my posts, which means that deep in your head, utility is superior to non identity for you.

So the question for you is;

Now that we've proven identity (utility) means more to you than non identity, what are you going to do with that corner I put you in earlier. Remember?? The remainder of the limits that can't be chaos??

Remember that corner?

It's funny to me, to see people reacting so negatively to someone such as me who knows the truth but acts differently just to be able to operate normally with regular people. I have no bad faith or cognitive dissonance because I understand and accept what I'm doing perfectly.

Regular people make a virtue out of acting in accordance with what you say/think - on one hand - but on the other hand they all believe their own narratives. Consider the modern western attitude towards religion: none of these people believe the stories are actually true anymore, but they see the wisdom in them and act accordingly. That is to say: they don't think or say the stories are true, they don't believe in them, but they believe in acting according to them - which is what I'm being accused of like it's a negative thing.All narratives are merely a conduit - a medium to translate meaning. They're all removed from reality and put into the form of a story, and there's no need whatsoever to believe in the story or think/say it's true, whilst also living by it. People already do it all the time. It's only the religious nuts who turn this on its head by insisting the stories are 100% true, to justify the fact that they live by them, and to make sure their actions match what they believe is true.

You have zero access to the consciousness that others seem to have, other than taking their word for it, intuiting through empathy using your mirror neurons, and generally using your imagination based on your own consciousness. You create this narrative that is "their identity", but the thing is you do the exact same thing for yourself. Common experience such as what you learn to be "your hands", "your legs", "your reflection", "your sense of balance and coordination" etc. reinforce themselves through repeated exposure to form this shopping basket that comes to form this idea of "identity" if enough of these things are in the basket at any one time. Lose enough of these things, or change them, and people say "you've changed", or "you're not you anymore".

I'm not wrong here, and this is all perfectly consistent with my own philosophy, Determinism and the arguments I'm making here. Understand and seriously consider what I'm saying here long enough and you might even come to realise it solves a lot of problems - simply by differentiating between truth and utility.

You keep going on about genius, well this is what it looks like right here.

I'm far away from any corner you think you ever put me in - we've only been following one line of reasoning: the one I found most interesting to discuss. Even if you decided you weren't interested in truth and wanted to operate from utility and then revisit your initial argument, I still have my 3 main arguments against Free Will that nobody's even attempted to get around:1) Possibility is not actuality: the feeling that you could have chosen differently doesn't make it an actual choice. Only actually choosing makes something actually possible.2) The mind-body problem. Not a problem in the sense that it could have a solution, but a problem in the sense that it's an unavoidable obstacle to any degree of Free Will at all.3) How can you be influenced by circumstance, in order to have something to make a decision about, without being influenced by circumstance, in order for your decision to be free from said influence? Free or Will? Not both.

Jakob wrote:This schematic you posted Artimas is pretty nifty.

I find my "View of Life" is just "Is" but I wouldn't say I'm "Enlightened" in any "spiritual" sense that one might associate with things like Eastern religion or meditation etc. I don't meditate and I am averse to anything religious, I've just realised life just "Is" and this is how I think of it, simply through thinking philosophically so unremittingly for so long. My emotional state isn't "Ineffable", but the fundamental concept of Experientialism that is "Continuous Experience" is ineffable. I don't really have an emotional state, someone I worked with once mistook me for the happiest person they've ever met, but another colleague corrected it to more like "content" - I don't have any of this "Energetic Frequency", I just "am" - but not even that. Not needing an ego, as is consistent with Experientialism and Determinism, is a significant ingredient of getting to where I have. I've not tried to get anywhere, I just ended up here. From what little I know of what I think is Buddhism, my way is consistent with not needing attachment. "Neutral" seems wrong, I find life neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory - all of the other views of life don't apply to me. I have my weaknesses that drop me a few tiers in the rare occasion that I am confronted with them, sure. As has been pointed out, it's a fun schematic to explore, but not really as discrete as it is laid out to be: another example of "Discrete Experience" distorting Continuous Experience for the sake of utility over truth.

You never walk off it, even though it being the truest truth, subsumed identity as its subset.

Ultimately on the cliff, the truest truth that there is, is the cliff. Yet you never step off it, while claiming that it doesn't exist, or rather, that beyond it is the ONLY place you and I need to be, or are!

I believe that a higher order logical fallacy can be made from this example, which doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it "laymens logic".

Ecmandu wrote:I believe that a higher order logical fallacy can be made from this example, which doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it "laymens logic".

Denying laymen's logic by coming up with the most layman imitation of proper terminology ever: "Ad hypokrites" Now *that* is perfect

You really do think there is a cliff face in your analogy don't you... I'm the one calling the illusion and walking over what you think is the "edge" to prove it, you're the one who won't follow me because even being shown is not enough for you. I can act like it's there and walk around it just the same as you and other lay-people - that's the only way you will all accept what I have to say. But if I walk over the boundary unscathed and better off, people think I'm trying to trick them! I'm reminded of the opening to Thus Spake Zarathustra

Good job on avoiding addressing anything in my post by the way. Stick with your "argument by analogy" where it's safe. But if not engaging is a sign you're no longer interested then by all means move on.

Ecmandu wrote:I believe that a higher order logical fallacy can be made from this example, which doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it "laymens logic".

Denying laymen's logic by coming up with the most layman imitation of proper terminology ever: "Ad hypokrites" Now *that* is perfect

You really do think there is a cliff face in your analogy don't you... I'm the one calling the illusion and walking over what you think is the "edge" to prove it, you're the one who won't follow me because even being shown is not enough for you. I can act like it's there and walk around it just the same as you and other lay-people - that's the only way you will all accept what I have to say. But if I walk over the boundary unscathed and better off, people think I'm trying to trick them! I'm reminded of the opening to Thus Spake Zarathustra

Good job on avoiding addressing anything in my post by the way. Stick with your "argument by analogy" where it's safe. But if not engaging is a sign you're no longer interested then by all means move on.

I avoided your entire last post because it was a long winded attempt at declaring yourself not a hypocrite for "proving" that the subset (identity) is not beholden to the superset (no identity).

You're not only walking in contradiction land here, everyone knows which one is actually true to YOU!

Identity.

The one that you state is impossible is the only one that you're about.

You've become a joke.

You've got yourself in a very deep hole here, and astoundingly, you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Last edited by Ecmandu on Mon May 13, 2019 10:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The problem with pro-slavery advocates (anti-free-will), is that they always fall-back upon their crutch if forced into a corner:

"It must have been the case to begin with, always."

This is a logical fallacy insuch that it can never be disproved (moving the goal-posts). You can never disprove "it must have always been". Nor can you prove it. So if a proposition can never be proved, or disproved, then it is not a sound argument and it is not a valid argument.

But "must have been" according to whom, and according to what???

Silhouette says "The Four Fundamental Forces" (according to Theoretical Physicists), therefore, according to a some scientists who claim to know. Their "Science" is no less sound and persuasive than what Silhouette presents here. According to whom? To scientists, who themselves, cannot back or prove their own assertions. "Must have been", according to Science?

No, that's not how Science works. Science "must have been" is only according to recorded, proven, repeated Experiments. If Experiments cannot be repeated, then they cannot be given as a 'proof' to subsequent arguments or demonstrations. Thus it is NOT "according to science" that it "must have always been".

Silhouette's position is undermined. According to whom? To him? To nobody?

Ecmandu wrote:I avoided your entire last post because it was a long winded attempt at declaring yourself not a hypocrite for "proving" that the subset (identity) is not beholden to the superset (no identity).

You're not only walking in contradiction land here, everyone knows which one is actually true to YOU!

Identity.

The one that you state is impossible is the only one that you're about.

You've become a joke.

You've got yourself in a very deep hole here, and astoundingly, you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Trying to persuade other people to think outside the box... <sigh>

When you go to a job interview and demonstrate how good a candidate you are - these actions are your true self!When you go to a foreign country and speak their language you become a joke for acting differently to how you really are!

I can give example after example of everyone doing what I'm doing in their everyday life - even things you would do yourself.But no, you would rather ignore all evidence if it means you can latch onto something that you can use to convince yourself that you've won.

I guess you recognise that's the closest you'll ever get to an actual real win, so fair enough - celebrate your nothing-win, congratulations

Ecmandu wrote:I avoided your entire last post because it was a long winded attempt at declaring yourself not a hypocrite for "proving" that the subset (identity) is not beholden to the superset (no identity).

You're not only walking in contradiction land here, everyone knows which one is actually true to YOU!

Identity.

The one that you state is impossible is the only one that you're about.

You've become a joke.

You've got yourself in a very deep hole here, and astoundingly, you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Trying to persuade other people to think outside the box... <sigh>

When you go to a job interview and demonstrate how good a candidate you are - these actions are your true self!When you go to a foreign country and speak their language you become a joke for acting differently to how you really are!

I can give example after example of everyone doing what I'm doing in their everyday life - even things you would do yourself.But no, you would rather ignore all evidence if it means you can latch onto something that you can use to convince yourself that you've won.

I guess you recognise that's the closest you'll ever get to an actual real win, so fair enough - celebrate your nothing-win, congratulations

Necessarily true superset (the existence of the cliff) is much different than acting differently than your true self (lying), because according to you, the subset (lying) (like the cliff) is impossible!

There's a big difference between stating "x is necessarily true for all beings" and watching you and EVERY being do the exact opposite and stating that beings can lie about themselves.

I agree that beings can lie to themselves for utility, but when push comes to shove, not ABOUT utility itself (just like the cliff)

You're the guy who keeps walking around the mesa and saying that because you haven't fallen off, there's no cliff. Everyone knows that it's your stubborn ego talking and not the truth, just like a boss checking your references or doing a background check.

Ecmandu wrote:Necessarily true superset (the existence of the cliff) is much different than acting differently than your true self (lying), because according to you, the subset (lying) (like the cliff) is impossible!

There's a big difference between stating "x is necessarily true for all beings" and watching you and EVERY being do the exact opposite and stating that beings can lie about themselves.

I agree that beings can lie to themselves for utility, but when push comes to shove, not ABOUT utility itself (just like the cliff)

You're the guy who keeps walking around the mesa and saying that because you haven't fallen off, there's no cliff. Everyone knows that it's your stubborn ego talking and not the truth, just like a boss checking your references or doing a background check.

The assumption behind your whole analogy is that the cliff is real. You're just presenting it as a given.

It's not, and I've explained why - you can ignore that we're both walking off the edge all the time, simply speaking in language that is phrased in terms of not going over the edge so we can both understand one another. I'm using this language to say we can do exactly what we're doing, you're saying we can't do exactly what we're doing and we've been on top of the mesa all this time. That's what the analogy should be. It's the wording that's the lie, the actions are the continuous experience that we're just imagining is discrete so we can create meaning through which to communicate about continuous experience in terms of discrete experience.

Ecmandu wrote:Necessarily true superset (the existence of the cliff) is much different than acting differently than your true self (lying), because according to you, the subset (lying) (like the cliff) is impossible!

There's a big difference between stating "x is necessarily true for all beings" and watching you and EVERY being do the exact opposite and stating that beings can lie about themselves.

I agree that beings can lie to themselves for utility, but when push comes to shove, not ABOUT utility itself (just like the cliff)

You're the guy who keeps walking around the mesa and saying that because you haven't fallen off, there's no cliff. Everyone knows that it's your stubborn ego talking and not the truth, just like a boss checking your references or doing a background check.

The assumption behind your whole analogy is that the cliff is real. You're just presenting it as a given.

It's not, and I've explained why - you can ignore that we're both walking off the edge all the time, simply speaking in language that is phrased in terms of not going over the edge so we can both understand one another. I'm using this language to say we can do exactly what we're doing, you're saying we can't do exactly what we're doing and we've been on top of the mesa all this time. That's what the analogy should be. It's the wording that's the lie, the actions are the continuous experience that we're just imagining is discrete so we can create meaning through which to communicate about continuous experience in terms of discrete experience.

No, my analogy is that everyone including you, by definition of mesa, and what they observe, knows that it's a cliff.

You're the only one in the group who argues that it's not a cliff.

Everyone else knows that you're full of it!

You'll be in the ledge and they'll tell you to take a step forward to prove it to everyone (stop posting on ILP) and you'll tell them that they're using a Tu Quoque logical fallacy and that they lost the debate, and just walk back.

Your absurdity is plain for everyone in these boards to see.

The cliff is no identity (leaving the boards because none of us exist, including you), posting here is utility, the behavior that you are lying about and truly don't believe the cliff doesn't exist... you NEVER step off the damn cliff, even though it's the only thing you can do to prove the absolute truth *scoofs and chuckles* of existence. To prove us all idiots.

"It was, is and will be Determinism that caused these traits to become as they are and function as they do, or otherwise, in the first place!"

Determined by Determinism?

That’s kind of what me and Meno we’re talking about, natural selection of natural selection, there is a source though, a single point of confined infinity, the first step out of nothingness.

Trial and error and adaptation more so then just cause and effect though. A bit more intricate. But to argue that point (which I do), which would mean everything has intelligence in some form, even if unconscious, the information attaches to imagery, via reactions, this is what change is. Instinctual unconscious aspects. If that makes sense.. unconscious > subconscious > conscious

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

The problem with this academic gymnastics is that common sense win every time.

He's basically calling it a logical fallacy that if silhouette and I were in a mesa (cliff on the whole perimeter) and I warned silhouette that there are cliffs in all sides, and then silhouette walks to the edge and walks around the whole perimeter without falling, and then states, "there are no cliffs here", that I am committing a logical fallacy by inferring that silhouette most certainly believes that a cliff is there. Then silhouette would quote the argument from incredubulity! When it's not me, but silhouette who is being the incredulous one.

Silhouette is like some bizarre broken computer of logical fallacies.

I don't think he's trying to make slaves, I just think he's a broken computer.

It's not really worth conversing with that one - except if you agree with him and you want reassurance and a sense of belonging to a tribe. Give it a go though if you want to try it out for yourself. Funnily enough, if I'm a broken computer, he's a broken record - the chip I've put on his shoulder from demolishing him constantly for about a year really took a toll on him, he still can't shut up about me

I would take exception to common sense winning every time. That's no slight to common sense - there is a ruthless society-wide refinement that goes into forming it, but this is also its weakness. Its whole point is to homogenise into a simple, singular, mediocre "common" sense for common people. It's adverse to new creative thinking, which you might call rare sense. I'm well aware that I'm furthering a worldview of rare sense that flies in the face of common sense in many ways, but the fact that it solves so many traditionally problematic philosophical conundrums in a relatively simple way makes it really promising in my opinion - and absolutely worth exploring.

It's an original philosophy that I came up with many years ago, which I dubbed "Experientialism".

And I wouldn't say I am incredulous, because I am able to believe in identity - as I prove through my use of it in communication and casual social interaction (I would be seen as extremely weird to common people if I didn't conform to such basic linguistic traditions in everyday conversation!) I have just adopted far more rigorous standards of knowledge than usual, which identity does not pass, and so using these standards it can no longer be said to be "true". However I think I can say differently about you and others, who won't/can't believe the consequences of adopting standards of knowledge as rigorous as I am using. To borrow your analogy, I'm not walking around the cliffs, I am walking on what you thought was over the edge, but actually isn't.

Ecmandu wrote:Let's condense your argument as you've presented it.

Utility is not the absolute truth.

The absolute truth is no identity.

Sure, that seems fine.

Ecmandu wrote:Your reliance upon utility is a contradiction to how a person is required to act if they truly believed what you assert to believe is the only truth.

So, I can easily assert that you don't believe your own argument whether it's true or not.

I can see now that you've been using the word "contradiction" in the layman way - where it is acceptable to say things like "your words contradict your actions". I've been using the technical way this whole time - the one that is applicable to logic. Sure, in layman's terms my words "contradict" my actions. But there is no logical contradiction there if using the term as it is used in logic.

Ecmandu wrote:That's just a bare minimum of what I'm required to do to end this debate, that as a proof, you don't believe your own argument.

Even though I did prove it false, I don't even have to go that far with you.

You're responding to my posts, which means that deep in your head, utility is superior to non identity for you.

So the question for you is;

Now that we've proven identity (utility) means more to you than non identity, what are you going to do with that corner I put you in earlier. Remember?? The remainder of the limits that can't be chaos??

Remember that corner?

It's funny to me, to see people reacting so negatively to someone such as me who knows the truth but acts differently just to be able to operate normally with regular people. I have no bad faith or cognitive dissonance because I understand and accept what I'm doing perfectly.

Regular people make a virtue out of acting in accordance with what you say/think - on one hand - but on the other hand they all believe their own narratives. Consider the modern western attitude towards religion: none of these people believe the stories are actually true anymore, but they see the wisdom in them and act accordingly. That is to say: they don't think or say the stories are true, they don't believe in them, but they believe in acting according to them - which is what I'm being accused of like it's a negative thing.All narratives are merely a conduit - a medium to translate meaning. They're all removed from reality and put into the form of a story, and there's no need whatsoever to believe in the story or think/say it's true, whilst also living by it. People already do it all the time. It's only the religious nuts who turn this on its head by insisting the stories are 100% true, to justify the fact that they live by them, and to make sure their actions match what they believe is true.

You have zero access to the consciousness that others seem to have, other than taking their word for it, intuiting through empathy using your mirror neurons, and generally using your imagination based on your own consciousness. You create this narrative that is "their identity", but the thing is you do the exact same thing for yourself. Common experience such as what you learn to be "your hands", "your legs", "your reflection", "your sense of balance and coordination" etc. reinforce themselves through repeated exposure to form this shopping basket that comes to form this idea of "identity" if enough of these things are in the basket at any one time. Lose enough of these things, or change them, and people say "you've changed", or "you're not you anymore".

I'm not wrong here, and this is all perfectly consistent with my own philosophy, Determinism and the arguments I'm making here. Understand and seriously consider what I'm saying here long enough and you might even come to realise it solves a lot of problems - simply by differentiating between truth and utility.

You keep going on about genius, well this is what it looks like right here.

I'm far away from any corner you think you ever put me in - we've only been following one line of reasoning: the one I found most interesting to discuss. Even if you decided you weren't interested in truth and wanted to operate from utility and then revisit your initial argument, I still have my 3 main arguments against Free Will that nobody's even attempted to get around:1) Possibility is not actuality: the feeling that you could have chosen differently doesn't make it an actual choice. Only actually choosing makes something actually possible.2) The mind-body problem. Not a problem in the sense that it could have a solution, but a problem in the sense that it's an unavoidable obstacle to any degree of Free Will at all.3) How can you be influenced by circumstance, in order to have something to make a decision about, without being influenced by circumstance, in order for your decision to be free from said influence? Free or Will? Not both.

Jakob wrote:This schematic you posted Artimas is pretty nifty.

I find my "View of Life" is just "Is" but I wouldn't say I'm "Enlightened" in any "spiritual" sense that one might associate with things like Eastern religion or meditation etc. I don't meditate and I am averse to anything religious, I've just realised life just "Is" and this is how I think of it, simply through thinking philosophically so unremittingly for so long. My emotional state isn't "Ineffable", but the fundamental concept of Experientialism that is "Continuous Experience" is ineffable. I don't really have an emotional state, someone I worked with once mistook me for the happiest person they've ever met, but another colleague corrected it to more like "content" - I don't have any of this "Energetic Frequency", I just "am" - but not even that. Not needing an ego, as is consistent with Experientialism and Determinism, is a significant ingredient of getting to where I have. I've not tried to get anywhere, I just ended up here. From what little I know of what I think is Buddhism, my way is consistent with not needing attachment. "Neutral" seems wrong, I find life neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory - all of the other views of life don't apply to me. I have my weaknesses that drop me a few tiers in the rare occasion that I am confronted with them, sure. As has been pointed out, it's a fun schematic to explore, but not really as discrete as it is laid out to be: another example of "Discrete Experience" distorting Continuous Experience for the sake of utility over truth.

Your fear or pride filled denial of attachment (even when one controls their attachment by attributing value to anything) to religion or spirituality or attempting at understanding it is what is trapping you or delaying the inevitability of your mind changing, whether you believe it or not. The books and spirituality in general have great significance, you should take less pride in yourself and put more pride in the fact that these books are ancient stories collected and preserved to depict man experiencing consciousness/psyche in the beginning of when consciousness evolved from the subconscious and that you can read them, if you have had a negative experience with spirituality then you should dismiss such, you state you are unbiased but are biased and it is blinding you. All you have done is change the semantics, it’s easy to feel right or special that way, when one thinks they are naming something new that has already existed long before and been described in different language and context. I used to be in your position, determinist, no free will.. experience of myself lead me away from that, which is spirituality. Knowing thy self.

Well if a lack in/of emotional state exists then you lack the experience of value attribution to see that there is a will that is free. You don’t have energetic frequency? Everyone has energetic frequency. Ever felt someone’s bad energy around you? Or that something is not right? Ever seen the experiment of yelling at a plant or glass of water vs talking to it with love? We manipulate energy, that’s what we do at the cost of value attribution, that’s what we do and always have been, it is what we are.

Not needing an ego? Everyone has an ego, the ego is malleable identity, there are other aspects to consciousness as well, such as shadow, self, anima/animus, unconscious/subconscious mind, etc. One can be self or one can attach themselves to the ideas of others and be made by them and not made by self. The ego is what you project yourself as and you have power over that projection by attributing value to what matters, you can be real or false and judging by how you lack the experience of reflection in meditation or any spiritual practice to discover or understand self I’d lean more toward false or an acceptance of indoctrination of specific ideologies of what ‘you’ and ‘we’ are.

He who lacks experience or imagery, is he who lacks understanding. There is no understanding blue without the image and the same goes for any understanding of any concept, there is no understanding of information, without the imagery of it. So if you do not understand yourself, how can I trust your judgement of what you believe to be ‘is’?

Existence is neither satisfactory or unsatisfactory (it is what it is), (it is what you make it) is life, which is consciousness coming from the subconscious (evolving instinctual complexity and a granted understanding of such)...... your literal freedom is making it either or. How do you not see that? Well I described why you do not see it, above. You should take this serious and reflect on your knowledge, it will reward you for being humble. I had to reflect on mine and I have come back here after years with new views and understanding, yet there is always more to understand and learn.

How you get there is far less important than what you find when you get there, as I believe I can take Jakob for saying regarding Nirvana.

Yes I read that you wrote "who", but since it was an invalid question, I corrected it to "what", which has a valid answer.

Things determine, and never by themselves alone. People are things, with no clear beginning and end to separate them from their context - just like everything else.

Everyone experiences the illusion of "themselves" being somewhere in there, determining things ex nihilo - but I keep pointing out the obvious contradiction: "It requires a mind separate from matter such that it is simultaneously immune from being determined by matter, yet can still be influenced by the causation of matter in order to inform decisions, and yet still able to interact with matter once a decision is made and realised." Free Will advocates are trying to have their cake and eat it by proposing the self as involved in the causal chain yet not, selectively in a very specific way, just to conform to the illusion that their conscious "self" is alone the arbiter of all choices.

I'm glad you're not hating - rational discussion becomes impossible when at least one interlocutor gets emotional.Tell this to Ecmandu who is under the impression that since he lacks the ability to understand/accept my argument, "everyone else knows I'm full of it".

Pedro I Rengel wrote:"That's a very determined quark!"

Negus.

"That's a very determined law of physics!"

The behaviour of things like quarks seems to be determined by laws of physics. Laws of physics are superficially determined by people, but since people are refining laws of Determinism in order to describe the whole world, including themselves, their creation is what is causing them to create their creation in an infinite loop. Continuous experience just "is", it's the doing and the being in continuity in one "everythingness". It's what people are trying to dissect into Discrete Experience in order to glue it back together with ever-improved narratives - the most advanced and predictive one yet by far being Determinism. So the best you can get in trying to model Continuous Experience, and question what models the model, is to end up in this infinite loop. Not very satisfactory, but the alternative of retreating to more dated conceptions such as "Free Will" where "the self" can somehow be the prima causa of things, breaking the infinite loop - this doesn't absolve it from its internal contradictions such as the one I mentioned above.

Determinism isn't "your master". It's a model of behaviours between things that influence each other in both masterlike and slavelike ways. It's not even the masterlike or slavelike ways itself - all this conception of Determinism as a restrictive force is nonsense. It's not like "oh no, I have to obey master Determinism because I dare not seek to escape its chains". It's however free you may feel, however many boundaries that you break, creations that you make, inspiration that you think and feel, it all works in a way that Determinism can model just fine. It almost seems like people don't want there to be a way that explains things - like a resistance to the intellectual. If "you" are the prima causa and not even Determinism can describe the sheer freeness of your spirit, then you can achieve anything! - and that's a nice feeling. The fact that Determinism describes and explains even this all the same dampens this feeling for some people? Why? It's not a cage. If anything, Determinism is a tool to "free" you even further. Of course the better language is that it increases the quality and quantity of ideas that can occur to you. The irony is that, if anything, it's the slave that needs to feel like there are no reins, because reins are what imprison them, but to the master, feeling like there are reins gives them ever more "freedom" to manipulate slaves to his will... It just makes me laugh how desperate cases such as Urwrongx1000 are growling the literal opposite of this truth with all the ceaseless gnashing of a cornered animal.

By profound contrast, with Einstein, as a creative thinker he would be aware that genuine creativity hits you from seemingly nowhere. All creative types are familiar with the surprise of a Eureka moment, seemingly coming out of nowhere. It hits you, you don't "hit it", any "self" is the object of creativity, not the subject. It therefore seems backwards to say the creativity came from you. Deterministically, of course it originated inside of your mind, unconsciously though. You can consciously mull through a logical problem and hit a solution, but this is not the same thing - perhaps you know what I mean and are familiar with this experiential difference? It's almost as though you just need to be the right vessel for creativity to strike - Einstein was one such vessel, and those who built on his ideas were hitting solutions rather than getting hit by creativity.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Also, if I may, the sense in which Einstein didn't invent the atom bomb. He had the Eureka. It was beautiful, a jzzoy.

Oppenheimer and them, they were seeking masters. Why also there was no original thinking from them, no discoveries, no actual "science." Just mathematical refinements of Einstein's science.

Agree, ideas come to us in moments of “eureka”, they surface from the subconscious into the conscious mind.

I get my ideas from myself first and my mind, then I test their consistency through others, that’s how we should proceed with philosophy, we are the uniqueness that may be used to evolve. Rather than to adopt first and appeal to authority. I only use others as references to prove the consistency in my thinking, never an appeal to their automatically being correct.

A good and true post.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Artimas wrote:Your fear or pride filled denial of attachment (even when one controls their attachment by attributing value to anything) to religion or spirituality or attempting at understanding it is what is trapping you or delaying the inevitability of your mind changing, whether you believe it or not. The books and spirituality in general have great significance, you should take less pride in yourself and put more pride in the fact that these books are ancient stories collected and preserved to depict man experiencing consciousness/psyche in the beginning of when consciousness evolved from the subconscious and that you can read them, if you have had a negative experience with spirituality then you should dismiss such, you state you are unbiased but are biased and it is blinding you. All you have done is change the semantics, it’s easy to feel right or special that way, when one thinks they are naming something new that has already existed long before and been described in different language and context. I used to be in your position, determinist, no free will.. experience of myself lead me away from that, which is spirituality. Knowing thy self.

Oooooh, I see what's going on here.

You changed your mind from Determinism, so you're assuming that other people (or at least me), who believe(s) in Determinism are just thinking like past-you

Wow, and here you recommend humility, and to me of all people. I don't even have much pride to speak of - I do give honest credit where it's due though, even if it's to ideas that just happen to have come through me - perhaps that's what is giving you this impression of me? I'm a Determinist who conceives of all people as continuous with the rest of experience, not islands but blurring in and out of relative context with environment and all others - yet somehow you have this conception of me as some kind of proud egotist: the exact opposite of what results from this. *Something* must be making you think you know me extremely well after a handful of posts over the course of a short period of time... But the enormous degree to which you are wrong and also hypocritical, and most likely just engaging in psychological projection, is really quite hilarious.

Going by pictures of you, you look about half my age and you're going on about the lack of experience that you're just assuming I have... If I don't meditate and am averse to religion, you assume I have always been this way, "something must have happened to me", and there's no other ways to gain equal or even better understanding/experience. It must be me because it can't be you, correct?

The arrogance! And you think it's me who is in need of growth to eventually get aaaaall the way up to to that lofty cloud where you are. Cloud 9 is it? Ah, youth... such naivety.As with all the new-age nonsense you're indulging in, maybe one day when you grow up you'll think less of your former self - just like you're trying to do to me here. But I've seen it all before so many times it doesn't mean anything to me anymore, so I'll just wish you well with all the continued evolution that Determinism has in store for you.

To address a previous post of yours that I hadn't got round to responding to yet:

Artimas wrote:Saying determinism will cause something to happen if it is supposed to happen is like saying god put that tree there because he wanted it to exist

...which is why this isn't my argument or Determinism. It's Fatalism if something is "supposed" to happen.

I've said it several times and I'll say it again with more conviction now my suspicion has been repeatedly confirmed: you do not understand what Determinism is.

First and foremost it's important to point out that Determinism is a description, or an explanation rather. It's not a proscription. It's not a restriction, it covers all things whether wild and pushing boundaries, or scared and following the crowd. You have this bizarre conception that it limits you, when all it does is explain behaviours whether they seem unlimited or not.

Determinism doesn't enforce rules that you have to abide by, it describes the behaviours of nature enacting on nature. Any enforcement is done by nature, not by the Determinism that describes it - your argument is like objecting to the messenger rather than the person who wrote the message.

Understand this, and all the strength of will in the world is completely understandable in terms of Determinism. You can work out a model of why nature is causing some natures to rise to fame and achieve success as well as why some natures give up, and Determinism is the best way we know how to do this - by a long way.

It's no wonder you switched from Determinism - you thought it was something else!

Some smaller issues + some closing stuff:

Artimas wrote:There is no temporal dimension or time to the unconscious/subconscious aspects of reality and the mind. It’s why we need an alarm clock to wake us up and why dogs and animals haven’t invented clocks.

Unfortunately not true. Many organisms have what's called a Circadian rhythm that will tend to wake you up and make you tired (amongst other things) at regular intervals - provided you don't mess with it too much of course. It's all unconscious.

Artimas wrote:Yes all will revert back to death and nothingness, to start over again. It will start over, there is no end. Without life it is inevitable because there is no time to it, the unconscious/subconscious, it has all of time to restart and we will be back like we always are, perhaps with different form and different minds.

Assuming the second law of thermodynamics is wrong and entropy somehow just reverses magically?

Artimas wrote:It is the separation of us and them, which the differentiation is consciousness. We have a subconscious/unconscious aspect to our mind that we may explore. Consciousness is finite, which is why you must hold the right pieces, to glimpse temporarily, more than what you can hold from the subconscious. The unconscious/subconscious aspect It is cause and effect in an inevitable form, non observable because there is no observer that may understand fully.

The main difference between the conscious and unconscious is that the former is best at solving mid-level complexity whilst the latter is best at solving the overly simple or overly complex.

Your conception of consciousness leaves you vulnerable to the "Homunculus Argument". If "we" are like these little men who operate our body, the little man presumably needs his own little man to operate his body - ad infinitum. Either that or you're positing some "ghost in the machine" that runs you into the mind-body problem. Will cannot be simultaneously free from influence, whilst being influenced by experience, whilst also able to influence. The self as "consciousness" is just a loose end conceived as a primitive explanation of how there appears to be a subject dynamic - and yet as soon as you try to find it as the object of your search, it is no longer the subject - the subject is now observing a new object. The subject is ever evasive to the point that it cannot be ascertained at all. The best you can do is claim some kind of inference that "well something has to be doing the observation!" If you want to be a Dualist you have all your work ahead of you to make any sense of it whatsoever. Or you can just admit that the findings of studies more and more suggest that even consciousness can be controlled like a remote control car just the same as any other part of the body - and funniest of all, people still feel like they're completely in control the whole time! Oh science and Determinism, how dare you break the illusions of the old and mystical where all understanding was ahead of us.... Consciousness is more like an echo that manifests and reinforces what the unconscious has already decided by itself. Either way, consciousness is just as much subject to the electromagnetic force that determines neurons firing that determines your conscious experience. As much as it feels like consciousness is the free driver, actually examining the whole thing reveals it really isn't.

You will still evolve just the same however well you're understood deterministically. You can still think and choose just as originally as you did before and it will appear just as free as before - nobody's taking that away from you here. Don't feel so threatened by people being able to understand people better than you want to think they can. You like the romance, the woo-woo - Determinism can explain why this is so too. I'm not even remotely as limited as you want to think I am - but how else would you understand something you don't yet understand, except in terms of what you already understand? Doesn't mean you can't come to understand it - I'm doing my best to explain it to you, but the more you resist and insist that it's how you used to be rather than how you could be, I'll be getting nowhere. I don't think you understand the degree to which everything you're saying isn't a new way of thinking for me, it's obvious why people fall for Free Will.